The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mahadeo - Court Judgment
|Court||Madhya Pradesh High Court|
|Judge||T.P. Naik and ;K.K. Dube, JJ.|
|Reported in||1972CriLJ1097; 1972MPLJ447|
|Appellant||The State of Madhya Pradesh|
|Cases Referred|| and Emperor v. John Scott|
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. .....(hereinafter called 'the act'), the learned judge gave him the benefit of section 95 of the indian penal code and acquitted him. the learned counsel for the state contends that section 95 of the indian penal code could have no application to offences under the railway property (unlawful possession) act. we do not agree. section 95 of the indian penal code occurs in chapter iv of the indian penal code and under section 40 of the indian penal code, the word 'offence' in that chapter includes an offence under any special act such as the railway property (unlawful possession) act. it is unfortunate that in m. p. state govt. v. amritlal 1953 nag lj 357 : air 1953 nag 141 and emperor v. john scott (1905) 1 nag lj 139. on which reliance is placed, the provisions of section 40 of the indian.....
T.P. Naik, J.
1. On being found guilty under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the learned Judge gave him the benefit of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him. The learned Counsel for the State contends that Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code could have no application to offences under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. We do not agree. Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code occurs in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code, the word 'offence' in that Chapter includes an offence under any Special Act such as the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. It is unfortunate that in M. P. State Govt. v. Amritlal 1953 Nag LJ 357 : AIR 1953 Nag 141 and Emperor v. John Scott (1905) 1 Nag LJ 139. on which reliance is placed, the provisions of Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code were not brought to the notice of the Court.
2. It was next contended that Section 14 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act precluded its application to the facts of the case. In our opinion, this contention has also no force, as there is nothing inconsistent between Section 14 of the Act and the provisions of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. The Act nowhere lays down that, however trivial be the subject-matter of unlawful possession under the Act. the offender must necessarily be held guilty and punished under its provisions.
3. In our opinion, the case raises no question of any difficulty or such importance as would warrant the grant of the certificate asked for.
4. The application for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution is, therefore, dismissed.